[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Filename : draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt
Observations in addition to "example.edu": - [RFC-DK] Is that ready for publication ? I don't get what the I-D tracker page actually says, is it approved ? - 8.1.1 s/displaying MTA/displaying MUA/ - 7.9 s/Permanent Header Messages/Permanent Header Fields [RFC 3864]/ and add [RFC 3864] to the informative references, see also <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.message-headers/33> - 7 s/Standards Track RFCs/any published RFCs/ Otherwise the following sections make no sense. The clause "approved by the IESG" should be removed. The RFC-editor is obliged to ask the IESG for comments in the case of any "independent" submissions. - 6.3 "SHOULD NOT reject" because that "could cause severe interoperability problems" is plain nonsense. Accepting mail tagged as "suspicious" will cause severe problems because tagged mail will be most likely deleted without further checks later. OTOH "reject" is a clean decision at the border MX. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
